ExpertCEO

By now, we all know HP's Board found no evidence of sexual harassment on the part of Mark Hurd. He lost his job anyway for disclosure lapses and expense report falsification, in a sequence of events that appear to be the corporate equivalent of Al Capone's tax evasion conviction.

Larry Ellison has described Hurd's departure as 'the worst personnel decision since the idiots on the Apple board fired Steve Jobs.' But corporate ethics professionals claim that litigation risk and governance guidelines left the board little latitude to do anything but part company with the CEO all agree had done an excellent job leading HP over the past five years.

Two questions for members--weigh in, please:

1) Once the HP board determined the sexual harassment allegations were baseless, should any mention have been made publicly of these charges? Or was this information shared to justify the decision to sack Hurd, when the expense reporting irregularities alone would have seemed like attacking a flea with a howitzer?

2) Do you agree with the board's decision to let Hurd go? Why or why not?

By handling the issue the way that they did, the board created much more controversy than is likely justified. I have to think that there is a bunch that we don't know at this point. If there was no sexual harassment issue, it shouldn't have been mentioned. Frankly, even it there was, it shouldn't have been mentioned unless there was a criminal or civil matter that had a material impact on the company.

I'm inclined to agree with Joe Nocera that the harassment and expense stuff was an excuse as he explains in his column in the NY Times, www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/business/14no...e&pagewanted=all

It's not easy to be on the side of Larry Ellison. But he may be onto something here. This firing stinks. Mark Hurd has done a remarkable job turning around a sinking battleship left by Fiorina.

To have been fired for something so trivial indicates 1) the board is way too political and bureaucratic, and looking for political cover or trying to appear too PC, or 2) someone has an axe to grind, and this is just an excuse to get rid of Mark.

In either case, the board is cowardly and hiding behind something else instead of bravely facing and addressing what's needed. For the sake of HP, the board needs to be the one to go.

It seems the board acted to prevent a PR mess, despite the facts didn't seem to merit a firing. In the end, their actions made the situation worse. I have a feeling the HP shareholders will be the ones to suffer. Hurd had created enormous value for HP shareholder and had the company in a solid strategic path; something that can not be said for his predecessor (and current Senate Candidate Carly Fiorina). Hurd not only increase the stock price, but lead HP to a solid strategic path soundly ahead of Dell and challenging IBM.

It seems unlikely that shareholder will see improved performance from Hurd's successor. If not, did the board do it's job to protect shareholder value? Should the board take responsibility for the situation?